USGS Photos Show Big Glacier Meltdown in Alaska

[CVX]

See attached photo:

Attached files

[anastrophe]

CVX wrote: See attached photo:
there are hundreds, if not thousands, of glaciers in alaska. is that the only one showing such a change? i'd think there'd be a lot more evidence than a single glacier, if they're going to hold it up as an example of global warming.

[BabyRider]

anastrophe wrote: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of glaciers in alaska. is that the only one showing such a change? i'd think there'd be a lot more evidence than a single glacier, if they're going to hold it up as an example of global warming.
A 2,000 foot thick glacier that shows this extreme change in such a short amount of time? I don't know at all, have zero knowledge on the subject, I'm actually asking, not being argumentative. (A first for me!)

[Cass]

I was just in Alaska last August... and we saw three glaciers up close and personal Sawyer Glacier, Shakes Glacier and LaConte Glacier... one of the glaciers was estimated to be 3 miles deep - straight down - if you can wrap your head around that.



Also, glacial ice is not the same as regular ice.... it is highly compressed and we were told that if you had 2 coolers - one full of regular ice and one full of glacial ice... it would take 24 hours for the regular ice to complely melt... and about a year for the glacial ice to completely melt.



If you are interested in seeing photos from this trip, I am just putting them up on my webpage...should be finished in a couple of days...here are a few though.

[Hawke]

While we are likely speeding up the timescale of things a bit with the artifical augmentation to insolation, global warming is a natural and inevitable phenomenon. Curiously, the warmup usually presages a descent into an ice age (though, climatically speaking, this is still likely centuries away).

[anastrophe]

BabyRider wrote: A 2,000 foot thick glacier that shows this extreme change in such a short amount of time? I don't know at all, have zero knowledge on the subject, I'm actually asking, not being argumentative. (A first for me!)well, sixty years is a pretty good chunk of time. geologically, it's a snap of the fingers of course. but still, there are so many other factors that could cause that, who can say?



i'm not much for the whole 'global warming thing is manmade' idea anyway. a lot of junk science involved, not a lot of hard evidence - besides people saying 'the earth is warmer than it was'. well, okay. after krakatoa exploded in the late 1800's, global temperatures dropped 1.5 degrees celsius, and didn't return to normal for eight years. the scientists are talking about a global change in temperature less than that, over the last 100 years.



i think it's "Statistics Gone Wild".

[Tombstone]

anastrophe wrote: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of glaciers in alaska. is that the only one showing such a change? i'd think there'd be a lot more evidence than a single glacier, if they're going to hold it up as an example of global warming.
Don't forget about this article that CVX posted:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2282

My ham friends up in AK corroborate all these stories.

[gmc]

posted by anastrophe

i'm not much for the whole 'global warming thing is manmade' idea anyway. a lot of junk science involved, not a lot of hard evidence - besides people saying 'the earth is warmer than it was'. well, okay. after krakatoa exploded in the late 1800's, global temperatures dropped 1.5 degrees celsius, and didn't return to normal for eight years. the scientists are talking about a global change in temperature less than that, over the last 100 years.

i think it's "Statistics Gone Wild".


The thing is if we listen to those who say global warming is a reality we end up with better more fuel efficient cars, power stations etc. If we ignore then and they are right we are all up the proverbial creek.

If we listen to the few who poo poo the idea, and a surprising number are financed by oil companies and continue as we are the environment changes. It is so obvious that weather patterns are changing that there is clearly something happening.

Saw one documentary where one was suggesting more co2 is a good thing because it is better for the plants and there was no need to be concerned.

[PermanentMarker]

Last year i was in iceland and i can confirm that glaciers do melt and most of them do melt, none of them is growing.

But since the bush administration makes people think kyote costs 5 milion jobs in the USA people are afraid to listen to kyoto. (altough it should be a spring of for new technology and thus new jobs)

So if you think burning benzine is realy normal and has happened the last thousend years.

Then perform the folowing act :

- go to shoping mall or another place where there are more people.

- overthere burn 40 galons of feul, just a nice burn.

- point with your fingers to the smoke, don't say anything.

- repeat this a few days

People might think your mad, but then just say your a car driver who lost his car.

But still wants to burn his feul. If people start complaining about it, just laugh at them as car drivers also do this when you try to explain them about global warming.

:driving: common keep on driving don't be afraid as your sponsored by multinationals who solve all your energy needs, they only want you to pay them some money and most of all keep your (ehm their..) lifestyle. You can feel safe as they even sponsor the white house....

[anastrophe]

and the icepack on greenland, which holds one of the most substantial reserves of ice outside of the arctic/antarctic, is growing, and has been growing steadily for many years.



there's little doubt that burning petroleum is affecting the climate. there's great doubt as to how significant it is.



think: conventional wisdom is that petroleum comes from ancient plant and microbial life that accumulated for millions of years on the ocean floors, then somehow got folded into the crust, compressed and heated for more millions of years, and then turned into our black gold.



well, that means then that there's countless billions of tons of carbon that *used to be* in the ecosystem that's been trapped for millions of years. if it used to be in the ecosystem, then it means the earth supported tremendous life and growth at one time far outstripping what we have now. releasing it now, so long as it's in a natural form (CO2), may not be as cataclysmic as is being suggested. the earth does have feedback and feedforward systems.



many of those in favor of kyoto and other overreaching initiatives would be content only if we all returned to using horses to plow the land, no artificial lighting, and obviously no internet or communication systems, as they require that evil carbon to do their dastardly deeds.

[PermanentMarker]

anastrophe wrote: and the icepack on greenland, which holds one of the most substantial reserves of ice outside of the arctic/antarctic, is growing, and has been growing steadily for many years.








check:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/2002120710965.html

so where did you got your data from?, as it's melting...

[anastrophe]

PermanentMarker wrote: check:



earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/2002120710965.html



so where did you got your data from?, as it's melting...


false. as i said, the greenland icepack is increasing - it's thicker than it's ever been measured before. the thicker the icepack, the faster the rate at which glaciers will calve, increasing the apparent "melting" at the periphery.

[anastrophe]

here's the problem with global warming: there's scientific "consensus" that anthropogenic activity is what is causing global warming.



the problem, to coin a phrase, is that there is no 'Smoking Tailpipe'. there is no direct, empirical evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is what is causing global warming. the response typically is that "it's obvious". or "what else could it be?".



the problem is, that's not science. just because something seems obvious, or no other explanation has been found, doesn't mean then that the hypothesis is correct.



the fact is, it is "obvious" that the sun revolves around the earth. any idiot can see that with their own eyes. what else could it be? i stand here where i've always been, and the sun comes up on one horizon and goes down on the other. duh. how more obvious can it be?



here's one of the major problems with the global warming theory:



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/ ... Record.png



we are led to believe that global warming has tracked human industrial growth and the growth of the use of fossil fuels. unfortunately, there's this annoying problem with that chart. between about 1940 and 1980, the global temperature record actually trended DOWN, not up. that's a damned long interval, during which fossil fuel use increased by orders of magnitude.



when i confronted some global warming scientists with that, the rather pale excuse they gave was that it was due to forcing caused by aerosol emissions of sulphates from car exhaust, which emissions essentially stopped with the mandated use of catalytic converters in 1975 and consequent requirements for reduction of sulfur in motor fuels. i find that unconvincing, since aerosol activity explicitly affects only a narrow boundary layer near the surface - the ocean is the primary sulphate aerosol producer, and the amounts are staggering. sulphate aerosols dissipate rapidly.



but i'm rambling at this point. it does seem "obvious" that man is causing global warming. i see no harm to be caused by working with alacrity to reduce whatever causes may be easily identifiable and easily mitigated. drastic measures that could cause calamities of another kind are to be avoided. kyoto is nonsensical - nations that spew lots of junk can continue spewing lots of junk by 'trading credits' with other nations. that's playing an economic game of roulette without actually reducing pollutants.

[Deep_Respect]

anastrophe wrote: here's the problem with global warming: there's scientific "consensus" that anthropogenic activity is what is causing global warming.



the problem, to coin a phrase, is that there is no 'Smoking Tailpipe'. there is no direct, empirical evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is what is causing global warming. the response typically is that "it's obvious". or "what else could it be?".



the problem is, that's not science. just because something seems obvious, or no other explanation has been found, doesn't mean then that the hypothesis is correct.



the fact is, it is "obvious" that the sun revolves around the earth. any idiot can see that with their own eyes. what else could it be? i stand here where i've always been, and the sun comes up on one horizon and goes down on the other. duh. how more obvious can it be?



here's one of the major problems with the global warming theory:



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/ ... Record.png



we are led to believe that global warming has tracked human industrial growth and the growth of the use of fossil fuels. unfortunately, there's this annoying problem with that chart. between about 1940 and 1980, the global temperature record actually trended DOWN, not up. that's a damned long interval, during which fossil fuel use increased by orders of magnitude.



when i confronted some global warming scientists with that, the rather pale excuse they gave was that it was due to forcing caused by aerosol emissions of sulphates from car exhaust, which emissions essentially stopped with the mandated use of catalytic converters in 1975 and consequent requirements for reduction of sulfur in motor fuels. i find that unconvincing, since aerosol activity explicitly affects only a narrow boundary layer near the surface - the ocean is the primary sulphate aerosol producer, and the amounts are staggering. sulphate aerosols dissipate rapidly.



but i'm rambling at this point. it does seem "obvious" that man is causing global warming. i see no harm to be caused by working with alacrity to reduce whatever causes may be easily identifiable and easily mitigated. drastic measures that could cause calamities of another kind are to be avoided. kyoto is nonsensical - nations that spew lots of junk can continue spewing lots of junk by 'trading credits' with other nations. that's playing an economic game of roulette without actually reducing pollutants.


I thought it was the burning of coal that caused most of the sulfur emissions into the atmosphere. The catalytic converter reduces carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and hydrocarbon emissions.

[anastrophe]

Deep_Respect wrote: I thought it was the burning of coal that caused most of the sulfur emissions into the atmosphere. The catalytic converter reduces carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and hydrocarbon emissions.


could be. regardless, that was what the climate scientists themselves offered as the reason.



regardless, repetition of the phrase "it's settled science" doesn't make it so, regardless of how many times al gore says it.

[anastrophe]

Diuretic wrote: Funny how something as important as global warming has been reduced to a political squabble. I'm not at all able to understand the science but I can smell political bullshit when it's around and there's plenty around. I may be thinking a bit simplistically but I weigh up the vested interests and work out who's trying to fool who.


if your'e able to smell political bullshit, but only from one side, then you have a selective olfactory sense.





There are a lot of vested interests which say there's no such thing as global warming. They can trot out a couple of scientists and some papers. They are quickly debunked. What annoys me is that if they admitted it then whole industries would have to change or disappear. That's a huge impost, admittedly, but if we actually start to grapple with the issue and begin to change now then w may be able to halt or even reduce adverse climate change and not suffer economically.


and there's a lot of interests out there vested in neo-luddite ideology. while you may consider it an 'annoyance' that whole industries would have to change or disappear, there's an awful lot of lives that hang in your 'annoyance'.



are you prepared to halter up the horse and buggy, and ride out to the farms to trade goods you have for fresh vegetable? pump your water by hand? give up your electricity? there's a lot of people in the Global-Warming-As-Bogeyman camp who sincerely want you to.





The vested interests fund attacks on those scientists and organisations that seek to prove that there is adverse climate change. So what vested interests do those scientists have for making these claims? Are they going to make billions out of it? Probably not. So it might be the case that there are no vested interests on that side of the argument.


most of those scientists are in academia or work from government grant to government grant. if they don't show apocalypse in the future, their funding dries up. ivory tower scientists are no different than ivory tower politicians or ivory tower industrialists.



regardless, you're making an argument that's a call to authority, which isn't how science works. the 'attacks' you mention are attacks with words. are you suggesting that they don't have a right to express their opinion on the matter?





Given all that I will send my vote to the party that promises to do something about global warming. As gmc pointed out, it's the only prudent thing to do.



If we do something about global warming and there really is no global warming, as the vested interests tell us, then nor harm done.


patently false on its face. the cost of combatting something that might or might not be there could be tremendous, could be catastrophic. economics isn't just an abstract thing that doesn't affect almost every human on earth. it's the difference between comfort and starvation.



again, just because it's 'obvious' doesn't make it a scientific fact. there's a lot that's wrong with modern climate science, not the least of which is that they take tiny slices of data and extrapolate it a hundred years.





If we listen to the vested interests and ignore global warming and it turns out to be a reality then we are in big trouble. Ergo it's best to do something about it than not. Like that mole on your forearm. It could be nothing ior it could be a melanoma. Are you going to take the chance or are you going to be prudent?


the person who rushes to the doctor for every sniffle, or every blemish, can wind up destitute from the costs of their hypochondria. perhaps there's a middle ground, between hysteria over a spot on the arm that comes off in the shower the next day, and lopping off the arm just to be prudent (it could be flesh eating bacteria!!)

[anastrophe]

Diuretic wrote: anastrophe - I'm not going to get into a tit for tat duel that well end up with the threads getting more sparse until finally one of us manages to squeeze out "I win"




that's quite fine by me. my intent is to get people to think critically, not to win. i usually write with the 'peanut gallery' in mind - the silent lurkers who outnumber us posters.





The doubts you raise in your post aren't at all convincing, too many equivocations of your own which indicate to me that you may not be all that convinced that the global warming argument is wrong.


you help me make my point. global warming is not settled science, nor are the predictions of what may happen as a result of global warming.



are you saying that it would be better if i were a hardline ideologue, convinced of the righteousness of 'my side'?



what i am trying to get people to do is think. just because al gore says - over and over and over and over - that "the debate is over" - that doesn't make it so! what he's doing is using a rhetorical trick to try to win support, and that's wrong. it's no different from the methods bigots use to promulgate their point of view.





And parsing my post just analyses it to the point of making it sound ridiculous.
i'm a lifelong parser. it's my way.





So, I'll reiterate my point - doing something about it will be less harmful than not doing something about it.


and i'll reiterate my point: doing something about global warming when we do *not* have any realistic idea of what the actual consequences may be can be as or more harmful than doing nothing.



i'm sorry, i cannot place faith and confidence in computer simulations by academics who have already made their minds up, said simulations which predict armageddon a hundred years hence, based upon a global fluctuation in the temperature record of less than a couple of degrees C.



i put 'record' in italics because it's a critical issue. we've only been able to measure the temperature accurately - to within a quarter degree or so - in the last hundred years. all other temperature records are deduced by extrapolation from things like tree rings, ice pack density etc, which are not at all accurate. in addition, in 1979 satellites were deployed to use special methods to record the surface temperature. these we were told would be the absolute most accurate record that could be obtained, free of extraneous variables that can affect measurements here on the ground.



the satellite temperature records showed no increasing global temperature trend. so how did the climate scientists contend with that 'problem'? they changed the data to conform with their other measurements.



you tell me - is that scientific?

[PermanentMarker]

Much more glaciers melting

at: www . worldviewofglobalwarming . org / pages / glaciers . html



at: edition . cnn . com / 2000 / NATURE / 07 / 20 /greenland.ice / index . html



from the last article we can settle down at greenland:

The Greenland ice cap is thinning around the edges and slightly thickening in the center.

so we see melting, with some light snowfall in the centre, obviously a result of a micro climate, the centre still cold, while the edges melt, so what you get some snowfall in the middle.



And note the pictures are not FALSE to disprove those EVIDENCE is required :-5



:driving:

[Bez]

I heard on the radio yesterday that if we stop generating all the crap that is causing global warming NOW, it would take 25 years to repair the damage ....but it IS repairable NOW...not in 10, 15 , 20 yrs time.

[anastrophe]

Bez wrote: I heard on the radio yesterday that if we stop generating all the crap that is causing global warming NOW, it would take 25 years to repair the damage ....but it IS repairable NOW...not in 10, 15 , 20 yrs time.


there's a bit of a problem with that though. it assumes that we have a 'smoking gun', and know, scientifically - empirically - what is causing global warming.



a few decades ago it was noted that there was a hole in the ozone over antarctica. much concern arose. it was theorized that chlorofluorocarbons were the culprit, so they were banned for the most part. the ozone hole has shrunk. much rejoicing! problem: it has not been empirically proved that it was the chlorofluorocarbons in the first place. the sun has a very long cycle of changing emission rates. coupled with the natural fluctuations in earths magnetosphere, that too could be the cause of the ozone hole. it's unknown yet for sure. the solar cycle also has a strong but still unclear effect upon global cycles of weather. the atlantic hurricane cycle is known to be up to about 40 years long - storms increase in strength, and decrease in strength, over the very long - and as yet unexplained - cycle. we've experienced an increase in hurricanes in recent years. this is being attributed to global warming.



there's an old story about the primitive tribe, going about its business, when suddenly in the middle of the day, it begins to get dark very quickly - there are no clouds in the sky, but the sun is being blotted out! the wise tribal elders suggest that the gods must be angry with them - they must perform a special dance to appease them. the natives take to dance with great fury and passion, and after a few minutes of frantic activity, the sun returns! the wise men saved them.

[OpenMind]

While there is nothing yet in terms of data that conclusively points one way or the other, I would rather err on the side of caution. The problem with this, however, is the current economic system. I, as an individual, am powerless to do anything but debate and give my opinion on the subject.

On the other hand. the multinational companies, bigger economically than most countries, are the ones that will determine how this swings. If there's profit in it, I am sure they will do everything in their power to persuade us that we are causing global warming and must buy their products to prevent it.

[anastrophe]

PermanentMarker wrote: so we see melting, with some light snowfall in the centre, obviously a result of a micro climate,


according to whom? the minute the word "obviously" is tossed out, it calls it into question scientifically.





the centre still cold, while the edges melt, so what you get some snowfall in the middle.


'so what'? you mean, information that doesn't fit the model can simply be ignored?



GLOBAL warming my fine friend. GLOBAL. an across-the-board increase in the overall average temperature. greenland is massive. the icecap on it - the second largest on earth - is thickening. not thinning, not staying the same.



in fact, this illuminates just how little the climate scientists *actually* understand - which means we're relying upon experts who don't know for sure what they're talking about.



from a nasa.gov description:

These indicate areas where the ice level is rising. The science of this phenomenon is fascinating. As ice melts near the coast, it gives up moisture to the surrounding atmosphere, raising its potential energy as the humidity rises. As it's also a lower altitude, the air is warmer, and thus it rises. Up on the wide, flat plains of ice that make up the majority of Greenland's surface, that moisture rich air cools when it reaches the comparatively higher altitude, and the air gives up its moisture in the form of snow. Gradually that snow builds up into ice, hence the apparent increase on the maps shown here. As it turns out, the thickening ice in the center is itself evidence of disappearing ice over the rest of the continent.

sounds plausible. problem: the prevailing winds over greenland almost without exception flow from the the center of the massive icecap outward to the coast. and those winds are not trivial - the *average* speed is 33mph, which is a strong wind, not easily overwhelmed my microclimatic influences generated at the coast.

[anastrophe]

i submitted that before wrapping it up.



the point is, the 'plausible' explanation offered by the nasa.gov folks doesn't stand up to the actual climatic structure. that rising, warm moist air isn't going to flow inland - it's going to flow *away* from the body of greenland, and that's evidenced by the wind patterns already measured.

Attached files

[PermanentMarker]

I'm sorry this windgraph is NO evidence every area on earth has wind graph's so this tells NOTHING AT ALL because altough we also have such graph it still rains and it still snows everywhere. (despite some hot places on earth)



There once was a small tribe of wheaterforcasters how suddenly felt rain despite their graphs showed that that the average windspeed was 33mph so the rain sould never be able to fall on their head as they reasned it should have been blown away long before it would reach their head.

to make it simple for you the more warming, the more vapor in the air.

Don't think only of greenland, this counts also for seawatered areas suronounding it.

Cool areas (altough melting see the nasa graph) can contain les moisture in the air then warm places, so because of that you get ice cristals in the air.

If the downpath to earth isn't cool enough you get rain, if not you get snow.

The middle of greenland is still cool so there you get some snow there.

(i hope your familiar with physics of air temp and amounts of possible moisture)



I think your in denial. :rolleyes:

[anastrophe]

PermanentMarker wrote: I think your in denial. :rolleyes:


i think you should stick to labeling things in a fade-resistant fashion.